This is a very interesting list because it takes into account actual on-field performance in 2012 rather than "hype" for players.

For example, there is no Earl Thomas in this list. Profootballfocus watches every snap and has determined that Thomas is not even the best DB on his own team. Everyone else has fallen victim to the hype.

Similarly, there is no Maurkice Pouncey. For years Pouncey has been the most overrated OL in the NFL but PFF watches the tape and rates him appropriately.

The danger was always there with how people viewed “JPP”. As good as his 2011 season was the emphasis placed on his sack numbers were always going to come back to bite him. And while it’s true he didn’t have quite the same impact as he did when the Giants won it all, it shouldn’t take away from a tremendously complete season he put forward. Excellent against the run, there’s no shame in the 55 QB disruptions he managed.

This is a very interesting list because it takes into account actual on-field performance in 2012 rather than "hype" for players.

For example, there is no Earl Thomas in this list. Profootballfocus watches every snap and has determined that Thomas is not even the best DB on his own team. Everyone else has fallen victim to the hype.

Similarly, there is no Maurkice Pouncey. For years Pouncey has been the most overrated OL in the NFL but PFF watches the tape and rates him appropriately.

maybe they don't value earl thomas as much as the next, that doesn't mean that their evaluation of his playing ability is really any more or less valid than the next site of "experts". to completely disregard everyone else as falling victim to hype because PFF said so isn't fair or true.

it's not like jeff franceour's rookie season when he didn't walk for like two months and half the world was lauding him as some future superstar while the other half saw that his production was in no way sustainable.

PFF is fun and all but take it with a grain of salt. They don't know what play was called (on either side of the ball) and randomly assign whether they were in position. Sure you can figure out blown assignments easy enough but how can they know whether a receiver ran a route 2 yards too shallow or if the QB overthrew the ball.

This especially comes into play with their grading of players in the secondary. If you don't have the play-call and audibles from both teams as well as an All-22 viewpoint it's a guessing game.

That being said as a general observation point it is quite nice to have the reviews when done in detail (not just scanning a top 101 sheet). Cameron Wake deserves a mention at 8 as he had a dominant season without a ton of favor thrown his way.

This is a very interesting list because it takes into account actual on-field performance in 2012 rather than "hype" for players.

For example, there is no Earl Thomas in this list. Profootballfocus watches every snap and has determined that Thomas is not even the best DB on his own team. Everyone else has fallen victim to the hype.

Similarly, there is no Maurkice Pouncey. For years Pouncey has been the most overrated OL in the NFL but PFF watches the tape and rates him appropriately.

If you read the Graham blurb, the only reason he isn't in the top-10 is because of lack of playing time.

Basically speaking, playing time does matter, because more playing time = more contributions.

That doesn't change the fact that Graham was a superior player on a PER-SNAP basis.

This ranking takes into account cumulative contributions first and foremost, however.

Right, bc more playing time ALWAYS means more contributions right?

So I guess a pinch hitter who hit 1 home run his one time at bat should have hit like 150 home runs on the season right? I mean after all, just extrapolate the numbers over more time and you have your answer right?

I hope you realize that Graham isn't even gonna be a starter this year. Which makes this whole debate even more hilarious.

So I guess a pinch hitter who hit 1 home run his one time at bat should have hit like 150 home runs on the season right? I mean after all, just extrapolate the numbers over more time and you have your answer right?

I hope you realize that Graham isn't even gonna be a starter this year. Which makes this whole debate even more hilarious.

I do find it quite hilarious when people cling to PFF as gospel then when it doesn't fit one of their agendas try and spin it to mean something completely different. Like he wants to run around and gloat with this list for Earl Thomas but in this situation it doesn't matter anymore.

I guess he thinks Vincent Jackson is better then AJ Green then, at least that much is settled.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Wright

I guarantee that if someone picks Cam Newton in the Top 5 they will regret it.

If you read the Graham blurb, the only reason he isn't in the top-10 is because of lack of playing time.

Basically speaking, playing time does matter, because more playing time = more contributions.

That doesn't change the fact that Graham was a superior player on a PER-SNAP basis.

This ranking takes into account cumulative contributions first and foremost, however.

This argument is so stupid. If he was really that good, he would get more playing time. That is like me saying Kevin Kolb is a better QB than Rom, Luck, Stafford, and Newton because he had more TDs per attempt.

I know stats are everything, but he has 8.5 sacks in three seasons. Over the last three seasons, that total has been surpasses in a single season74 times.

Brilliant letting one of Scott Pioli's henchmen have his own team to ruin. One of the premier GM jobs in the NFL and it gets handed to a stupid **** who makes three facepalm moves for every good one. Awesome. Just like handing a new Mercedes to a 16 year old girl who's already been in three wrecks.

And let's totally ignore that the guy has been playing in a wide 9 scheme this whole time that exaggerates pass rush performance.

Graham can be a good player, I'm not saying he's a bum. I was a huge fan of his coming out of the draft. He was my favorite DE in that draft, with JPP being a close 2nd (only bc he was raw, if he wasn't such a wildcard he'd be my favorite), but Graham is what he is at this point, and I don't see him ever becoming a dominant pass rusher like JPP.

This argument is so stupid. If he was really that good, he would get more playing time. That is like me saying Kevin Kolb is a better QB than Rom, Luck, Stafford, and Newton because he had more TDs per attempt.

I know stats are everything, but he has 8.5 sacks in three seasons. Over the last three seasons, that total has been surpasses in a single season74 times.

i'd liken it more to of a darren sproles type thing; sure he is among the most valuable runningbacks in the league on a per-snap basis, but his skillset is limited to appearing in only certain formations and situations. as a result, it's not unreasonable to assume that his stats are inflated on account of: being well-rested when he is on the field, facing defensive schemes with more defensive backs, being involved almost exclusively in plays conducive to the strengths of his game (other guys who may have similar strengths but are more well-rounded may see a dip in their overall efficiency-related statistics by mixing in more of those runs that sproles never has to make).

Imagine a scenario:
- Player A has an overall avg/obp/slg is .275/.333/.415, batting .300/.340/.430 vs righties and .250/.325/.400 vs lefties
- Player B hits .300/.340/.430 but faces exclusively righties because he can't hit lefties

One thing that kills me about people who harp on PRP for guys who don't get a ton of sacks is that a good portion of pressures and knockdowns are ultimately irrelevant. It's a crucial flaw in the formula, and the weight should be nowhere near as high as .75 of a sack. For example by mid-season last year the Broncos had 110 non-sack pressures and knockdowns, and 135 total pass rushes. At the same time they had only forced 8 interceptions and 118 incompletions on 296 passing attempts.

It's simply an absurd weight to be putting on something that has a far more ambiguous, and far more likely inconsequential result on a play.